Court reviews procedural and substantive claims in decades-long Rockland Trust dispute

Nick Nesgos, arguing for Rockland Trust, urged the appeals court to decide the merits rather than remand because the dispute has persisted since 2003 and, he said, the appellate division did not apply the correct standard in dismissing the appeal. He said a short delay in filing an appellate designation was not a serious misstep warranting dismissal and emphasized meritorious claims on the merits, including rules-based challenges.

Respondent counsel Dana Kurhan countered that Rockland repeatedly failed to comply with appellate Rule 8(c) and did not show excusable neglect or seek leave under Rule 14; she argued appellate-division precedent permits dismissal when rules governing appellate filings are not followed and that some of Rockland's substantive claims lack evidentiary support or are time-barred.

The panel pressed both sides on the appellate posture, the proper standard for review, and whether this court should resolve the merits or remand to the appellate division. The court submitted the matter after extended argument.